Outcome after surgical and conservative treatments of canine peritoneopericardial diaphragmatic hernia: A multi‐institutional study of 128 dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare demographics and disease characteristics in dogs in which peritoneopericardial diaphragmatic hernia (PPDH) had been diagnosed and report outcomes after surgical treatment (ST) or conservative treatment (CT). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. SAMPLE POPULATION: One hundred twenty-eight dogs (91 ST, 37 CT) in which PPDH had been diagnosed. METHODS: Medical records were reviewed for demographics, perioperative findings, and outcomes. Follow-up was obtained via telephone interview and email correspondence with owners and referring veterinarians. Baseline variables were compared between treatment groups. RESULTS: Dogs treated surgically were younger (P < .001), more likely to be sexually intact (P = .002), more likely to have clinical signs from PPDH vs an incidental diagnosis (P < .001), and more likely to have other congenital abnormalities (P = .003) compared with dogs treated conservatively. Ninety-seven percent of ST dogs were discharged from hospitals. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were reported in 22% and 41% of dogs, respectively, although most complications were classified as low grade (75% and 83%, respectively). Follow-up was available in 87 dogs, at a median of 1062 days. Hernia recurrence was not reported in any surgically treated dog. The deaths of nine dogs (five ST, four CT) could be attributed to PPDH, and long median survival times were observed in both the ST and CT groups (8.2 and 5 years, respectively). CONCLUSION: Preoperative characteristics differed between dogs treated conservatively vs surgically. Surgical treatment was associated with low operative mortality, and both ST and CT dogs had good long-term survival. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: A diagnosis of PPDH can confer a good long-term prognosis for both ST and CT dogs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".